r 



E 668 
.H66 
Copy 1 



T 



PRESIDENT HAYESES SOUTHERN POLICY. 



AN ADDRESS 

DELIVERED IN THE TOWN HALL, HIRAM, OHIO, 

TUESDAY EVENING, SEPTEMBER 25, 1877. 



BY B. A. HINSDALE, 

PKESIDEXT OF HIRAM COLLEGE. 



.\-\<=^- 



Our belief is that at present the Southern whites are determined to accept him 
(the negro) as a voter under white guidance, and, as long as lie chooses to accept 
this guidance, to protect him in the fullest manner in the security of person and 
property. We have no doubt that as far as the free exercise of all his faculties 
goes — in buying, selling, earning, saving, suing and being sued — he is now as well 
off as any white man at the South, exposed to no more violence, and in no more 
danger of denial of justice than any of his neighbors. This result is not wholly sat- 
isfactory to those who cannot bear to think even of any curtailment, in any part 
of the country, of the freedom of election which exists in any other part ; but 
those who remember that the problem which vexed us all after the war was simply 
how to procure for the Viegro protection for person and property — that is, the status 
even of a non-voting free laborer — must admit that his present condition is an 
enormous advance; that to have actually obtained for him all that we then ventured 
to hope for, and in twelve years, is no mean gain. — The Nation, No. 639. 



tn l!xcbMige. 

N^^, Res. \4 \'iT S*c« 

OCT 4 m% 



THE PRESIDENTS POLICY 



Fellow Citizens: 

First of all, let me define the point of view from which I 
speak. I appear here as the representative of no political party. 
No men or man save myself is in any degree responsible for what 
I am abont to say. If Eepublicans, with whom I have always 
acted politically, approve my argument, I shall be gratified; if 
Democrats approve it, I know of no reason why I should be 
offended; but I shall utter no word simply to please either the 
one or the other. 

Whether in the future the administration of Peesident 
Hates will stand out as an era in American politics, it is quite 
too soon to tell; but it will be marked by two features of unques- 
tionable importance. One of these is the President's attempt, 
apparently honest and determined, to reform the National Civil 
Service; the other, the radical change that he has made in the 
attitude of the National Administration to certain of the States 
lately in rebellion. The outcome of the first of these policies 
cannot yet be predicted. The President may abandon it; he may 
persist in it and fail; he may persist in it and succeed; but the 
issue in any case will have much to do with fixing the place of 
his administration in history. In the sense of being an accom- 
plished and irreversible fact, the second policy is already an 
assured success. This policy is the theme of my address; what 
it is — why it was necessary — to what it will lead. I shall state 
my thesis thus: 

President Hayes's Southern policy is the plain meaning of 
the National Constitution — the plain duty of a law-abiding, 
patriotic President — and a necessary condition of peace and order 
in the Southern States. 



There has been much discussion concerning the nature of our 
government, and concerning its proper name. Some have said 
that our fundamental hiw is a compact among the States, tliat 
sovereignty resides in the States, and that we are only a Con- 
federacy; others, that the fundamental law is a National Consti- 
tution, that sovereignty resides in the Union, and that we are a 
I^ation. In this address I shall avoid theories, general descrip- 
tions, and even names as far as possible, and confine myself as 
closely as I can to admitted facts. Looking into our Constitu- 
tions, I shall state how the powers of government are there dis- 
tributed; especially shall I determine the larger relations of the 
States and the Union. 

The American Nation was born with our independence. How 
early E pluribics unum became our national legend, I do not 
know; but it is Avritten in "large hand" across the face of the 
Declaration. The delegates comprising the Continental Con- 
gress, in their most solemn act, style themselves "Eepresenta- 
tives of the United States of America." They do not declare 
the United Colonies "free and independent States," as separate 
and unrelated communities — that is, as Virginia, New York, 
and Massachusetts; but as united, as forming a union, and as 
composing a nation. Thirteen political societies exist on both 
sides of July 4, 1776; but on one side they are subject colonies, 
on the other, free States. Hence, the States are no older than 
the Nation, and the Nation is no older than the States. They 
were created by the same act, and began to exist at the same 
time. The Nation did not create the States, nor the States the 
Nation; both were created by the American people, and are mu- 
tually dependent. It has been well said: 

"The American people ' have not, as an independent sovereign people, either 
established their union, or distributed themselves into distinct and mutually 
independent States. The union and the distribution, the unity and the dis- 
tinction, are both original in their Constitution, and they were born United 
States, as much and as truly so as the son of a citizen is born a citizen, or 
as every one born at all is born a member of society, the family, the tribe, 
or the nation. The Union and the States were born together, are inseparable 
in their Co istitution, have lived a'ld grown together; and no serious attempt 
till the late secession movement, has been made to separate them.' "* 

Prom the beginning, the powers of government were roughly 

*338 Andrews's '■^ Manwil of the Constitution,''^ pp. 21-2. 



distributed between tbe Continental Congress, wliicli stood for 
the Nation, and the State governments. This distril)ution was 
made by general consent, and was not embodied in any conven- 
tual or legislative act. It was guided by the needs and feelings 
of the hour rather than by philosophical discussion; by the logic 
of events rather than by the logic of statesmen. But the States 
had this great advantage — they were old political communities, 
though now existing under new names and deriving their powers 
from a new source; they had institutions, traditions, a history, 
and political machinery; they were also exceedingly jealous of 
the Nation; wdiile the Nation had no such advantages, and had 
to create its institutions and machinery de novo. What was 
more natural than that, in the rough distribution of powers then 
made, the larger share should fall to the States, and that the 
General Grovernment was left almost helplessly weak? That such 
was the case, is well known even to the tyro in American history. 

In 1781, the yoimg Nation entered on a second phase of life. 
The Articles of Confederation went into operation in that year. 
These did little more than declare legal the state of things whicli 
had existed since 1776. What had been a revolutionary govern- 
ment now became a legal government. Hence, the Articles were 
simply a new foundation thrust under an old building. In no 
important particular did they strengthen the hands of the Nation."" 
Indeed, when peace settled down upon the land and the pressure 
of war ceased, those hands were Aveaker than ever, and it seemed 
that the Union would fall to pieces. 

In the first place, the new constitution was called "Articles 
of Confederation and Perjictual Union between the States." It 
amounted to nothing more than a league. In the second place, 
such national powers as it conferred on the Union were rendered 
practically inoperative by this proviso: 

" The United States, in Congress assembled, shall never engage in a war, 
nor grant letters of marque and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any 
treaties or alliances, nor coin money, nor regulate the value thereof, nor ascer- 
tain the sums and expenses necessary for the defense and welfare of the United 
.States, or any of them, nor emit bills, nor borrow money on the credit of the 
United States, nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the number of vessels 
of war to be built or purchased, or the numoer of land or sea forces to be raised, 
nor appoint a commander-in-chief of the army or navy, unless nine States 
assent to the same." 

What is more, this impotent constitution was incapable of 



6 

improvGiuent; since an amendment mnst first be agreed to in 
Congress, and then be ratified by all the States — a plain prac- 
tical impossibility. 

To bo more definite, the Articles of Confederation gave Con- 
gress power to fix the size of the National army, and to appor- 
tion the troops to be raised among the States, according to a 
prescribed rule; they also gave it power to divide ''all charges 
of war" and other defined expenses among the States, according 
to another prescribed rule. But, in the first instance, it was left 
to the State Legislatures "to raise the men," and, in the second, 
"to lay and levy" the taxes. In case the States did not raise 
the men, or lay and levy the tax, the army was not re- 
cruited and the treasury was not filled. Again, Congress had 
" the sole and exclusive right and power * * * of entering 
into treaties and alliances," but not to debar the States from 
practically controlling the whole subject of commerce. One of 
our early publicists thus sums up the more striking of these 
defects : 

' ' By this political compact the United States in Congress have exclusive 
power for the following purposes, without being able to execute one of them. 
They may make and conclude treaties ; but can only recommend the observance 
of them. They may appoint ambassadors ; but cannot even defray the expenses 
of their tables. They may borrow money in their own name on the faith 
of the Union; but cannot pay a dollar. They may coin money; but they can- 
not purchase an ounce of bullion. They may make war, and determine what 
number of troops is necessary ; but cannot raise a single soldier. In, short, they 
may declare everything, but do nothing."* 

Fisher Ames very naturally declared, " The government 
of a great nation had barely revenue enough to buy stationery 
for its clerks, or to pay the salary of the door-keeper." It is 
evident that the Articles unduly restricted the field of the 
Nation. But a more fatal defect was this — the Nation had no 
energetic or coercive power. It did not come in contact with 
individuals, but only with corporate communities. In the words 
of Hamilton — 

"The great and radical vice in the construction of the existing Confedera- 
tion is in the principle of legislation for States or governments, in their corpo- 
rate or collective capacities, and as contradistinguished from the individuals of 
whom they consist. "+ 

♦Story quotes the passage in his Oommentaries. — § 246. 
+TAe Federalist, No. 15. 



In fact, the Uuion liacl no power to touch a single man — 

either to draft him into the army, to tax him to fill the treasury, 

or to compel him to obey a single law. Concerning such a state 

of affairs, Chief Justice Marshall wisely said: 

"A government authorized to declare war, but relying on independent States 
for the means of prosecuting it ; capable of contracting debts and of pledging 
the public faith for their payment, but dependent on thirteen distinct sove- 
reignties for the preservation of that faith ; could only be rescued from igno- 
miny and contempt by finding those sovereignties administered by men exempt 
from the passions incident to human nature." 

And Justice Story as wisely added: 

"That is, by supposing a case, in which all human governments would 
become unnecessary, and all differences of opinion would become impossible."* 

What flowed from such a constitution as this, need not be 
stated in terms. It is enough to say that the General Govern- 
ment was the plaything of the States, the contempt of foreign 
nations, and the humiliation of national statesmen. Washington 
called the Confederation "little more than the shadow without 
substance," and Congress "a nugatory body." One of his con- 
temporaries declared that the United States presented to the 
world the awful spectacle of a nation without a government. 

The Constitution of 1787 thoroughly remedied the great 
defects of the Confederation. In the first place, it greatly widened 
the sphere of the Nation; and, in the second, it brought the 
Union into direct, face-to-face relations with the citizen. It was 
a Constitution ordained and established by the i^eople, not 
Articles of Confederation among contracting States. N"ow the 
Congress could lay and collect taxes; borrow money on the 
national credit; regulate commerce with foreign nations, the 
Indians, and among the States; establish a rule of naturalization 
and laws of bankruptcies; coin money and punish counterfeiting 
it; establish post roads and post offices; create judicial tribunals; 
define and punish piracy; declare war; raise and support armies; 
provide and maintain a navy; declare the punishment of treason; 
and perform many other sovereign acts that need not be here 
recited. That there might be no mistake or failure as to the 
extent of the Nation's authority, Congress was clothed with 
power — 

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
execution the foregoing jjowers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution 

* Commentaries on the Constitution. — § 248. 



in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer 
thereof. " 

The effect uf this power, implied tlirougliout tlie instrument 
as well as here stated in words, was to free the Nation from all 
dependence on the States so far as execnting its Avill was con- 
cerned. Since the day on which the Constitution Avent into 
operation, the American Union can draft and tax, imprison and 
hang, without let or hindrance from any quarter. But as though 
this were not enough, the Constitution declared: 

"This Constitution, and the Jaws of the United States which shall be made 
in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the 
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the 
judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or 
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 

xVnother clause provided that "all legislative, executive, and 
judicial officers, State as well as National, shall he bound by oath 
or affirmationto support this Constitution." 

As a result of the foregoing powers, the Constitution of 1787 
made us in fact what we had before been in theory and in name 
— A Natiojs". 

One reading of our National Constitution will suffice to show 
any competent judge tluit it is only one-half of a complete 
political system. It grants some of the more striking powers, as 
those enumerated, but others equally necessary to the well-being 
of society are not mentioned. Where are these powers? Where 
IS the other half of our system, considered as a whole? 

It must not be supposed that with the new Constitution the 
Nation became centralized or consolidated in any such sense as to 
destroy or absorb the State governments. These continued vigor- 
ous political societies, performing most of their former functions, 
though stripped of some of the more imposing powers of govern- 
ment. This fact points us where the powers not defined in the 
National Constitution are found: they are in the States. More 
specifically, such propositions as these must not be lost sight of: 

1. With us the people are the ultimate source of political 
power. 

2. The peoi)le, in a general or National capacity, deleo-ated 
certain powers to the Nation, and prohibited to it certain other 
powers. 

3. The i)owers not delegated were held in reserve. 

4. The people, in their States capacities, grant these re- 



9 

served powers to the Sti^te governments, or witlihold them as 
they see fit. Some of them, however, are prohibited to the 
States in the National Constitution. 

So important was it thought clearly to bound the field of 
National power, that the tenth Amendment to the Constitution 
expressly declared: 

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." 

Accordingly, our government is one of unlimited powers so 
long as it Avorks within certain lines; beyond those lines, it has 
no powers at all. That territory is covered either by the State 
governments, or by the people in their original capacity as popu- 
lar sovereigns. Whether the National powers are more important 
than the State powers, is the same as asking whether the Union 
or the State is more necessary to the people. The fact is, both 
are essentially complementary parts of one political system. 

Certainly the powers delegated to the States in the State 
Constitutions are both numerous and important. They are less 
striking and obtrusive than the National powers, but they relate 
more immediately and directly to domestic peace and order. 
Before the late war, this was felt more strongly, perhaps, than 
now. Very naturally. National politics has given an ever-widen- 
ing field to political ability and political ambition. State poli- 
tics has been gradually overshadowed. In 1795 John Jay re- 
signed the Chief Justiceship of the United States to accept the 
Governorship of New York; a thing morally impossible for at 
least the last half century. The late war, by vastly enlarging 
the scale of the National Government's operations, thrust the 
Union forward still more prominently. Before the war and in 
time of peace, the Union touched the common citizen at few 
points, the State at many points. The National Government 
looked after commerce, conducted diplomacy, managed the 
army, the navy, the postoffice, the public lands, and controlled 
the Indians. It taxed the citizen in a manner so indirect that 
he hardly knew how or when he was taxed. In war, the 
symbols of National power made a deeper impression. But it 
fell to the State to look after the legal interests immediately 
surrounding the home and the place of business. The citizen 
might forget the Nation, but the State was ever before his vision. 



10 



For tlie preservcation of every private right and tlie redress of 
every private wrong, he was directly dependent on the State. 
It did not so much matter to him what was done by the diplo- 
mats of the Panama Congress, or by the Indian agents on the 
Missouri; but if the legal machinery of the State became seri- 
ously deranged, lie felt the shock at once. Was he robbed on 
tlie road by a highwayman; was his house plundered by a burg- 
lar; were his buildings burned by an incendiary; was he unlaw- 
fully deprived of his liberty; was he threatened in life or limb; 
was his family molested; was he slandered, deprived of his pos- 
sessions by fraud, his premises trespassed upon; would he collect 
a debt or contest the title to a piece of property; would he di- 
vorce his old wife or marry a new one,— in all these cases he 
looked to the State for protection and for redress of wrongs. 
Did he offend in any of these and many other particulars, it was 
to the State that he must answer. Would he make a contract, 
"bind out" his son as an apprentice, or organize a private cor- 
poration, the State laid down the law governing the case. He 
devised his estate according to State statutes; dying intestate, 
the State controlled the devolution of his property. It is not 
too much to say, that the statute in which he had a direct 
personal interest was a State statute ten times where it was a 
National statute once. I have said all this was so; it is so now 
for while the Nation has tended to overshadow the State, our 
Constitution and laws remain substantially unchanged so far as 
these matters are concerned. Probably the Union and the States 
will never resume their old relations in all particulars; but leo-al 
oversight of domestic affairs must remain with the States, itn- 
less our whole system is radically changed. 

Thus, it is plain that our governmental system is two-fold 
Ihe people, in the words of President Andrews, - have estab- 
lished a kind of double government, that of the United States 
and that of the several States." Dr. Brownson as truly says, 
the powers of government are divided between a general crov- 
ernment and particular governments, each emanating from^he 
same source." Judge Jameson treats the subject still more ex- 
plicitly, thus: 

"And here I may remark that the Constitution of the United States is a 
part of the Constitution of each State, whether referred to in it or not Tnd 
U^tedStrr T""'' "' ''' States form a part of the Constitution of the 
Umted States. An aggregation of all these constitutional instruments wouW 



11 

be precisely the same in principles as a single Constitution, which, framed by 
the people of the Union, should define the powers of the general government, 
and then by specific provisions erect the separate governments of the State, 
with all their existing attributions and limitations of power. There is not a 
particle of question that the people of the United States could have thus framed 
their Constitution, had it been thought advisable, or that they could still^ 
whether regularly or not is another question —melt the thirty odd Constitutions 
into a single one. To do the latter, undoubtedly they must first recall the 
power, conceded by the existing Constitution to the people of the several States, 
to frame, each in a quasi sovereign capacity, its own Constitution. But this, if 
they are the sovereign, they unquestionably have, if not the iQgal compe- 
tence, at least the physical ability, to do; or they may even, as we have seen, 
under like conditions, abolish the States as distinct political organizations."* 

Neither part of the one system is complete, or can be 
understood, without the other; each is dependent on the 
other, each essential to the other, and to society. Neither is 
more essential than the other. The citizen is subject to two 
jurisdictions; one State, one National. As a consequence, the 
administration of justice in the United States is marked by 
some curious anomalies. This can be shown by a few simple 
examples. 

The postoffice in Hiram, as you know, is kept in a store. On 
one side of an inch board are bags of salt and papers of coffee; 
on the other, the United States mail. Two men, we will sup- 
pose, break into the store. One carries off the salt and coffee; 
the other, the mail -matter. As burglars, they are both answer- 
able to the State; but as thieves, one is answerable to the State, 
the other to the Nation. One is arrested by a constable, bound 
over for trial by a justice of the peace, tried by the State Court 
of Common Pleas in Ravenna,, sentenced to the State's Prison at 
Columbus; the other is arrested by a marshal, bound over by 
a commissioner, tried by the United States District Court sit- 
ting in Cleveland, and imprisoned wherever the Nation has 
directed. One is pardoned, if pardoned, from Columbus; the 
other, from Washington. How different the course of justice 
in the two cases! The whole force of the Nation is pledged to 
deliver the letters and newspapers to their owners; the force of 
the State is pledged to protect the salt and coffee. 

In the late railroad strike, the National Government could 
liave put armed soldiers on the mail trains to protect the mails 
in transit, and the mail clerks; but not to protect the baggage 

* The Constitutional Conventio7i, 1867, pp. 87-8. 



13 

o " 



f the passengers on the same trains, or even tlieir lives. Col. 
Thomas Scott, in his late paper entitled " The Eecent Strikes," 
points out u still more curious anomaly, thougli for a very dif- 
ferent })ur[)ose: 

" The only roads which could procure prompt protection and inimunitv 
from interference, were those whose misfortune had made them bankrupt, and 
placed them in the direct custody of receivers appointed by the United States 
Courts. To the aid of these roads, the United States Marshal could call United 
States troops."* 

Such an administration of justice as this, and such a division 
of political powers, may surprise a foreigner; but such is the 
American system of double government. 

Each of these tAvo half-governments is supreme in its own 
sphere. True, the National Constitution is the supreme law of 
the land; but there is only one purpose for which the Nation can 
enter the legal jurisdiction of a State that is republican and not 
in rebellion, and it can enter then only on condition of its being 
invited. That purpose and the condition are thus defined: 

" The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican 
form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on 
application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature can- 
not be convened) against domestic violence." 

The direct protection of society against domestic violence is 
a duty withheld from the National Government and committed 
to the State. In ordinary cases, the State must preserve the 
public peace. The National Cxovernment has nothing to do with 
the punishment of theft, arson, or even murder. It cannot enter 
a State to quell a riot or put down an insurrection against State 
authority, until it is invited to do so. The President, whose 
duty it is to furnish the needed aid, knows nothing officially of 
either riot or insurrection until he is officially informed by the 
State authorities. Hence, Molly Maguires may harry the mining 
districts of Pennsylvania as Rob Roy harried the Marches o'f 
Llangollen, or Ku Klux may burn Negro cabins and murder 
Negroes in the Carolinas; but the President cannot stop either 
without State permission. It is true that if the domestic 
violence disturb the normal operations of the National Govern- 
ment—if a post office be ])esieged, a mail train attacked, a 
custom house threatened, a National tax resisted—the Nation 



*North American Review, September-October, 1877. 



13 

can deal with these things in so far as JSTational aulhovity is 
interfered with, and no farther; but these things do not consti- 
tute "domestic violence" in the sense of the Constitution. 
But the Constitution foresees occasions when tlie State will l)e 
unable to preserve the peace, and it provides for them by 
empowering and commanding the Nation to aid the State when 
the State calls for aid. But even in this, great deliberation is 
enjoined; the Legislatui-e is to make the call when in session, or 
when it can be convened, the Governor only on sudden emer- 
gencies. So strong was the determination to limit the Union to 
its own sphere! Hence, domestic violence may exist in a State 
for weeks, or even months; society may be disturbed in all its 
borders; and the Nation be powerless to interfere. In such 
cases, only the State can set the National forces in motion. The 
usual course in suppressing insurrection or domestic violence 
is for the local magistrate, as the Mayor of a city, to call out the 
constabulary or the police for that purpose. Failing, he calls on 
the Sheriff of the county, whose business it is to call out the 
posse comitaius. The Sheriff failing, he calls on the Governor, 
who is the commander-in-chief of the State militia. All these 
steps may be very quickly taken, but they all properly precede 
the intervention of National authority. How groundless, then, 
the criticism on the National Government that it does not pro- 
tect life and property in certain of the States. 

It is quite true that Congress, in the Civil Rights Act of 
186G, and the Enforcement Act of 1871, attempted, in certain 
cases, to throw the National power around the citizen. Con- 
cerning these laws it may be said, first, they certainly put on 
the Constitution all the strain it will bear; second, to enforce 
them has been found of the utmost difficulty. But these statutes 
do not essentially change our old political system. The Chief 
Justice of the United States, in charging the jury in the 
Ellenton cases a short time ago, thus defined the law concerning 
the shocking crimes alleged against the prisoners: 

" However much you may deprecate the acts which have been described by 
the witnesses, the punishment of those guilty of them has been committed by the 
law to other courts than this. The power for that purpose exists in the govern- 
ment of the State, and under our political system the courts of that government 
can alone be resorted to for the trial and conviction of such offenders." 

What shall we say, then, of the late Maine Republican Con- 
vention which declared — 



14 

"It is the most solemn, momentous, and imperative duty of the National 
Government, by exercise of every constitutional power, to extend its protection 
to every citizen, native and naturalized, white and colored— whether manacled 
by tyranny abroad or by political persecution, now shielded under the heresy 
of States Rights, at home " ? 

What can we say of tlie authors of this language less than 
this— either they were ignorant of the distribution of powers in 
our political system; or they were consciously darkening counsel 
with words without knowledge? 

Article fourteen of the Amendments declares: 

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges 
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any 
person of life, liberty, or property; nor deny to any person within its jurisdic- 
tion the equal protection of the laws." 

" Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
protection of the laws." That is, there is to be one Imv for all 
classes of persons; but if, owing to official incompetence or indif- 
ference, or to a corrupted public sentiment, the law is not en- 
forced, or not equally enforced, there is no National remedy. 

It is often said to be strange that a government which can 
protect its humblest citizen sailing the most distant seas, or 
wandering on the farthest strand, cannot protect a citizen's life 
and property at home. This may or may not be " strange;" the 
sufficient reply is, the American people have delegated to the 
Nation the protection of the citizen against foreign enemies, 
to the State his protection against domestic enemies. The 
''strangeness" springs from our dual system. I am not here 
vindicating this system as a piece of political wisdom, but only 
describing some of its salient features. Of course, the Amer- 
ican people, if they wished, could melt down the material found 
in their present system and cast it in a very different mould, but 
that is not the question. 

As has now been shown, these dual half-governments comple- 
ment each other; each is essential to the people, and, as will soon 
appear, to the other. To inquire which is more important is, 
therefore, futile. The State leans on the Union, the Union on 
the State. Should the Union be destroyed, thirty-eight separate 
States, each with a half-government, would remain; should the 
States cease to perform their functions, society would fall into 
chaos, and the Nation could not endure. The States, not 
simply as people but as States, are essential to the present Union, 



15 

although they do not constitute it. For instance, the Constitu- 
tion deckres: "The Senate of the United States shall be com- 
posed of two Senators from each State, cliosen by the Legisla- 
ture thereof." Hence, if the States neglect to elioose Senators 
there can be no National Senate, and no Congress. Again, tlie 
Presidential electors in each State are appointed "in such man- 
ner as the Legislatures thereof may direct." Hence, if those 
Legislatures pay no attention to this duty, there are no electors 
and, therefore, no President. These plain and unmistakable 
duties are devolved by the Constitution on the States; many 
others pertaining to the working of the National machinery are 
devolved upon them by law. Nor can the States be compelled 
to perform these duties more than they can be comi)elled to pre- 
serve the peace, or than Congress can be compelled to perform its 
duties. It is assumed that they will perform them. . It is quite 
true that in time of peace no State has ever failed ; but it is a 
fact that, in the beginning, some of the wisest statesmen, even 
after the Constitution was ratified, feared that the whole scheme 
might fall through in consequence of State failures to elect Sen- 
ators and Representatives. It is clear, therefore, that without the 
continued co-operation of the States, the National machinery 
must stop. Once the States are destroyed or paralyzed, our 
system is in ruins, and a new one must be constructed. 

In one point of view, the State is more independent of the 
Union than the Union is of the State. With the election or ap- 
pointment of State officers, high or low, the Nation has nothing 
to do. The State holds its own elections. It names times and 
places, appoints the judges, determines the qualifications of vot- 
ers and rules for voting, canvasses the vote, declares the result, 
commissions the officers and inducts them into their respective 
offices. If disputed questions arise, the State must adjudicate 
them. An election may be tainted with fraud; it is the State's 
own matter. It may be attended with violence; the State must 
suppress it, or ask the Nation to do so. Even in the latter case, 
those who have disturbed the peace, when arrested, must be 
handed over to the State for trial and punishment. A man may 
make himself Governor of Ohio, or any other State, by most un- 
blushing fraud; it is nothing to the authorities at Washington. 
He may accomplish the same end by gross intimidation; Wash- 
ington must wait the proper call before interfering. In fact, 



Ifi 

two candidates may dispute by armed force for the governorship 
of a State; the whole State may be involved in the controversy; 
while this great Union sits by a quiet spectator until invited 
to put an end to the unhappy strife. 

But two provisions in the Constitution can in any way limit 
or qualify what has now been said. One is this: 

" The United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican 
form of government." 

In case a revolution in any State had resulted in setting up 
another than a republican government, it would be the duty of 
the United States to interfere. Such a case would bring up 
some troublesome questions, as: "Who is the judge to deter- 
mine Avhat a republican form of government is," and "Whether 
such is the existing government in a given case." No doubt, 
Congress is tlie last authority on these points; but Congress can- 
not use its power save in grave cases. The theory of our gov- 
ernment is, that the people will purge their own threshing-floors. 
A power to secure republicanism must not be made the instru- 
ment of revolution. 

The other provision is the one which makes it the duty of 
the United States to protect a State against domestic violence. 
Our laws declare it the duty of the President to see that the 
needed aid is furnished. He must decide on the gravity of the 
case. It is also said to be his duty to decide what is the Legis- 
lature, or who is the Grovernor. This is in a sense true. The 
President cannot listen to the call of any assembly or of any 
man; but only to that of the Legislature or Executive. Hence 
he must decide. But by what rule? The answer has been al- 
ready given. The State elects her own officers. By her own acts, 
she tells who are her Legislature and who her Governor. Ac- 
cordingly, the body that she knows as her Legislature the Presi- 
dent is to know as such; and the man whom she knows as her 
Governor he is to know as such. The decision of the State is 
absolutely conclusive on the President. To hold that it is not 
conclusive, is to give him the power to re-canvass the election 
returns, to revise the decisions of the State authorities, and to 
tell the State who her highest officers are. It is needlesss to say 
that such a theory has no support in our Constitutions, and is 
thoroughly anti-repu])lican. We have heard a great deal these 
last years about the President's "recognizing" State govern- 



17 

ments. Some seem to think ho has an imperial power, above 
the Constitution and the hiws. Hence I shall plainly say, he is 
•to recognize whom the State recognizes and none l)esidos, 
unless in the one case where Congress decides that the existing 
government is not republican. 

In any ordinary case, no one will think of disimting this 
■conclusion. But there remains the case of a State in such dis- 
order that the results of election are not certainly ascertained 
;and declared; when, in fact, it is not legally known who the 
Legislature and Governor are. There may be several " Legisla- 
tures" and several "Governors;" either of the parties may make 
an "application" for help to put down the others; and who 
is to decide among them? Our Constitution and laws do not 
■expressly answer, that I am aware. They contem})late a State in 
its normal condition, not in disorder and revolution. The 
case supposed is extraordinary, and must be dealt with as 
extraordinary. In general, Congress Avould take the initiative. 
If Congress were not in session, perhaps it would be the 
moral duty of the President to interfere in the name of the Na- 
tion, to save society. Granting this, by what principle would he 
be guided? First, the President would waive the legal appli- 
cation in the desperate case in which it becomes apparent that 
the State cannot legally determine the results of the election; 
and, second, he should be guided by the best opinion of the 
State. In such an emergency no other question can be so perti- 
nent as this one: What does the best public sentiment want? 
Ex-Governor Cox, in his late address entitled, "Historical 
Maxims for Troubled Times," finds no maxim truer than the 
one he states thus: 

"Another maxim constantly recurring in History, and almost as constantly 
forgotten in troubled times, is that under institutions at all free, solid peace can 
only be built upon the general consent of the governed, and especially upon the 
assent and support of the classes which include the intelligence, energy, and the 
capital of the community in a preponderating degree.*" 

This maxim is to be the President's guide in the abnorma 
case supposed. 

The foregoing rapid account of our political system shows 
that it is exceedingly complicated, and most difficult of compre- 
hension. Instead of being simple, it is most involved and com- 
plex. John Quincy Adams called it a "complicated machine," 

* Page 18. 



18 

•''an anomaly in tlio history of the world;" "it is that," he said, 
''which distinguishes us from all other nations, ancient and mod- 
ern." No wonder that the foreigner rarely can he made to 
understand it! No wonder it is understood, even in its gene- 
eral features, only by a minority of our own citizens ! We can 
almost excuse the administrator who sometimes loses his way. 
The fact is, only a good training in political science and history, 
added to a knowledge of our Constitutions and laws, the whole 
lit up by a close observation of it in operation, fully qualifies a 
man to grasp this most complicated and involved of govern- 
ments. 

If the foreigner, accustomed to the regular and simple, 
though strong, governments of Europe, questions the wisdom of 
our dual system, we say, first: "Hitherto we could have no 
other. It was this or nothing. Nor could we now have any- 
thing materially different. Our dual system grows out of our 
history; our Constitutions, State and National, simply formu- 
late the facts of our political life." But in the second place, 
we can say : " The higher the grade of any organism, the more 
fully differentiated and the more heterogeneous; and a complex 
government with checks and balances and divided powers, is the 
most favorable to liberty." The general argument for a division 
of powers has never been stated better than by Mr. Webster, in 
what Dr. Lieber calls "the most Demosthenean passage of that 
orator:" The spirit of the passage applies in the present ques- 
tion : 

" The first object of a free people is the preservation of their liberty; and 
libertj' is only to be preserved by maintaining constitutional restraints and just 
divisions of political power. Nothing is more deceptive or more dangerous than 
the pretence of a desire to simplify government. The simplest governments are 
despotisms; the next simplest limited monarchies; but all republics, all govern- 
ments of law, must impose numerous limitations and qualifications of authority, 
and give many positive and many qualified rights. In other words, they must 
be subject to rule and regulation. This is the very essence of free political in- 
stitutions. The spirit of liberty is, indeed, a bold and fearless spirit; but it is also 
a sharp-sighted spirit; it is a cautious, sagacious, discriminating, far-s eeing in- 
telligence; it is jealous of encroachment, jealous of power, jealous of man. It 
demands checks ; seeks for guards ; it insists on securities ; it entrenches itself 
behind strong defences, and fortifies itself with all possible care against the as- 
saults of ambition and passion. It does not trust the amiable weaknesses of hu- 
man natm-e, and, therefore, it will not permit power to overstep its prescribed 
limits, though benevolence, good-intent, and patriotic purpose come along with 
it. Neither does it satisfy itself with temporary and flashy resistance to illegal 
authority. Far otherwise. It seeks for duration and permanence. It looks 



19 

before and after; and, building on the experience of ages which are past, it 
labors diligently for the benefit of ages to come. This is the nature of consti- 
tutional liberty; and this is our liberty, if we will rightly understand and pre- 
serve it. Every free government is necessarily complicated, becau-so all such 
governments establish restraints, as well on the power of government itself as 
on that of individuals. If we will abolish the distinction of branches, and have 
but one branch; if we will abolish jury trials, and leave all to the judge; if we 
•will then ordain that the legislator himself shall be that judge; and if we place 
the executive power in the same hands, we may readily simplify government. 
We may easily bring it to the simplest of all possible forms, a pure despotism. 
But a separation of departments, so far as practicable, and the preservation of 
clear lines of division between them, is the fundamental idea in the creation of 
all our constitutions ; and, doubtless, the continuance of regulated liberty de- 
pends on maintaining these boundaries."* 

But tlie complexity of our system alone will not account for 
tlie popular ignorance and carelessness concerning its nature. 
In politics, as in everything else, men are powerfully in- 
fluenced by wJmt they see. I have already spoken of the 
new prominence that the war gave to the Union as com- 
pared with the States. The force of the attack compelled the 
Nation, in self defence, to lay every constitutional jiower under 
contribution; the utmost tension was put on the Constitution; 
some would say it was broken in a score of places. Then it was, 
almost for the first time, that Ave began to hear about "war pow- 
ers" and "war measures." Inter arma silent leges became a pop- 
ular political maxim. Many things were done, as the emancipa- 
tion of the slaves by proclamation, the issuance of a paper 
legal-tender, the suspension of the liabeas corpus by the Execu- 
tive, that those who did them admitted could not be done in 
time of peace. And then, when the Avar had ceased de facto, 
and the Nation had entered on the work of reconstruction, the 
Constitution Avas kept under the same tension. I do not men- 
tion these proceedings either to condemn or to approve them, 
but only to say — they very naturally changed in some degree the 
operations of our political machinery. The States had become 
less, the Nation more. Men saw the National Government in 
new and strange relations to States; dictating terms of recon- 
struction, and "recognizing" State governments. In fact, for 
years the legal status of State governments depended absolutely 
on the will of the authorities at Washington. What was more 
natural, then, since men learn more of politics by seeing the ma- 



*The Works of Daniel Webster, vol. iv., pp. 123, 4. 



20 

cliine in operation than by poring over l)ooks of law or history, 
than that many citizens should come to think the extraordinary 
proceedings during and following the war were the normal and 
ordinary operations of our system? Such was really the case. 
And as the unfamiliarity of the people with a coin legal-tender 
for fifteen years is an obstacle in the way of a return to sjjecie 
payments; so the habit of National interference in State affairs 
leads many to suppose that non-interference is the irregularity. 
No better argument for an early abandonment of "war 
powers" and "war measures" can be given. The republican 
ideal is dimmed by imperial habits of thought, and republican 
practice is destroyed by imperial methods. Perhaps the word 
" imperial" is not the best one; but let no man say the last fif- 
teen years has not sadly confused the public mind as to the na- 
ture of our system, and, measurably, dimmed the brightness of 
our old ideal. 

But those who are addicted to this habit of reasoning, are 
generally careful to distinguish between the States that did and 
the States that did not go into the rebellion. A proposition to 
do in Ohio or New York what Avas strenuously urged in Louis- 
iana, Avould have provoked a universal outcry of dissent. The 
argument in the case of Louisiana rests on the tacit assumption 
that the war worked a permanent change in the legal relations of 
the seceding States to the Union; in reply to which it may be 
said — the seceding States did stand on a different footing from 
the loyal States from the moment they went into the war until 
the work of reconstruction was complete. From the time that 
their Senators and Eepresentatives were admitted to Congress, 
and their State Governments were recognized, they stood on the 
same footing as the other States. The admission and the recog- 
nition were once for all. * 

* Often a reductio ad ahsurdum is the best way to reply to an argument. I 
cannot help wondering what a certain class of men would think of this reduced 
extract from a leading journal : 

The failure of the President's "policy" in "West Virginia, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, Indiana, Missouri, and Illinois during the late railroad troubles was plain 
and apparent enough. The State authorities made only feeble an4 ineffectual 
attempts to protect life or property. Now, however, there comes even a more 
glaring illustration of the unwisdom of his course in not keeping two companies 
of infantry in the State-House at Harrisburg. General Pearson, the officer in 
command of the militia during the riots, and who acted with but little energy, 
has been arrested in Pittsburgh and held to bail on a charge of murdering a man 



21 

The prevalent mental confusion strangely appears in another 
particular. Some appear to think the Hayes policy is one of 
two or more ''policies " that may be adopted; and that it can be 
swapped off if it does not " work well." Men who opposed it in 
the beginning are now " willing to try it." So great and so gen- 
eral is this confusion of mind, that it is not a work of superoga- 
tion to say: If this policy is plainly constitutional, no other can 
be. If it be the duty of the President to abstain from interfer- 
ence in State affairs, it cannot be right for him to interfere. In 
a thousand cases it is constitutional to accept or reject a proposi- 
tion, as expediency may decide; but tbis is not one of them. 
Whether what the Constitution commands or ])rohil)it.s is wise 
or not, is a question of political philosophy; but the question, 
"what commanded ?" or " what is prohibited ?" is not to be 
settled in ne light of policy. Hence, postponing the matter un- 
til "after election to see how it takes," as the newspapers some- 
times talk, is the greatest nonsense. 

Let us now apply the doctrines set forth to the cases with 
Avhich the President had to deal. 

The close of the war left the States that had gone into the 
Rebellion, both as communities and as governments, defeated and 
prostrate. They had made a supreme effort, and had met a 
supreme failure. As another has said, " society was wrecked 
from top to bottom." From the Potomac to the Rio Grande 
lay one vast industrial and social chaos. The State governments 
had to be reconstructed under the sujjerintendence of the ISTatiou. 
In the progress of the work, two conditions were imposed upon 
the South: The classes which included the intelligence, projierty, 
energy, and political experience were disfranchised for participa- 
tion in the Rebellion; the Xegroes were enfranchised. The 
arguments by which these conditions were justified were, that 

who was killed by the ttre of the troops. The Mississippians have been abused a 
good deal, and for the most part justly, for their slowness in prosecuting the 
actors in the Kemper County tragedy in their State, but they have at last gone 
to work, and their GJ-rand Jury has indicted a batch of the assassins, and it is 
expected that some of them will be brought to justice. Suppose, however, that 
instead of doing this they had indicted the sheriff for killing a man while en- 
deavoring to suppress the riot, what would some of our papers say of the " pol- 
icy?" And yet for savage violence and bloodshed, and mm-derous intent, and 
general hostility to civilization, the Kemper County affair was not half as bad 
as the Pittsburgh affair. We therefore think the State-House at Harrisburg 
ought to be occupied by a military force. 



22 

the disfranchised men were traitors and could not be trusted; 
and that the Negroes were loyal, and must have the ballot to 
protect themselves against the hostile white race. I do not can- 
vass these arguments; the conditions were hard ones, though 
perhaps the emergency called for them. But they led to two 
momentous consequences: Society was deprived of its natural 
leaders; and political power was thrown into the hands of the 
least intelligent and least moral part of the population. The 
Negroes and a small minority of Whites were enthroned in the 
seats of 250wer. What followed will remain a stain on our 
history to the end of time. 

First of all, political leaders were immediately forthcoming. 
Some of them were men of character and ability, having the 
interests of the South at heart; but more were either disrejiu- 
table men found on the ground — the class called "scallawags" 
— or disreputable men from the North — the class called "carpet- 
baggers." These leaders and their black following became the 
law-givers of great commonwealths. Neither the "scallawag" 
nor the "carpet-bagger" cared anything for the South; neither 
cared they for the Negro; both were intent on personal and cor- 
rupt advantage. Of course, the governments were marked by 
the greatest ignorance, incapacity, and corruption. At one time, 
a majority of the South Carolina Legislature could not read or 
write. It may be doubted if the world ever saw, in a civilized 
land, such another enthronement of ignorance and venality in 
the halls of government. 

Second, the adventurers pounced at once on the property of 
the South. It is an historical maxim of all times, quiet as well 
as troubled, that the non-taxpayer is indifferent to questions of 
taxation. He pays no taxes himself, and cares nothing for fiscal 
questions unless it is to make them inure to his advantage. 
Hence he sometimes comes to have an interest in spoliation. In 
the present case, the black voter became the instrument by which 
the corruptionists robbed the property-holders. In some in- 
stances property was almost confiscated. Without taking time 
to look up the statistics, it answers my purpose to say that 
municipal, county, and State debts were run up by the million 
dollars, and the public had nothing to show for the indebtedness. 
And while this was going on, the suffering Southerner found 



33 

little more consolation than tliis — "You arc a traitor and 
deserve your fate." 

Naturally, the old dominant class strove to emancipate them- 
selves. Powerful forces soon began to work in this direction. 
Boys grew up and became voters; the amnesty was extended to 
wider and wider circles; and, the shock of war past, moral power 
began to return to the defeated party. From the first, it was 
clear that the carpet-bag regime could not last. It was a warfare 
against civilization. One by one, the reconstructed States fell 
into the hands of their old masters; and soonest, of course, where 
the Negroes were fewest. I shall not follow the history of this 
revolution. Suffice it to say, at last only South Carolina and 
Louisiana remained for President Hayes to emancipate by his 
so-called ''policy." To the second of these States, I shall now 
devote some remarks. 

If any man can make his way through the mazes of Louisiana 
politics the last ten years, he has a clearer eye and a steadier 
head than I can claim. But I have no trouble in finding my 
way out beginning where the President began. 

In no State had the struggle of parties and races been longer 
or bitterer. Small in numbers at the beginning, the opposition 
had grown until the two were nearly matched. In the fall of 
1876^ there was an election for Governor and members of the 
Legislature. Two candidates, Mr. Packard and Mr. Nichols, 
■each claimed the election. The canvass of the vote and the 
proclamation of the result lay with the Legislature. The United 
States had nothing more to do with it than with a similar ques- 
tion in Ohio— that is, nothing at all. But, unfortunately, the 
Legislature was also in doubt. Nor had the United States any- 
thino- to do with this question. It was for the State to work its 
own^way out of the snarl. The returns made out by the local 
Eeturning Boards gave a "Packard" Legislature; but the other 
.side denied the legality of the returns. Hence the question 
arose. Who shall decide who constitute the Legislature? Why, 
the Leo-islature itself— rather the two Houses each for itself; for 
it is a well-known legal principle in the United States, that 
«very legislative body is the final judge of the qualifications, 
elections, and returns of its own members. It is also a well- 
settled parliamentary rule that, in deciding on disputed cases, or, 
as they are called, "contested elections," only those members 



34 



vote about whom there is no dispute. That is, those members' 
who are not the subject of -contest" decide who are mem- 
bers. When the number of contests is small, the decisions, 
may be held m suspension while other business goes for- 
ward. Now, had not faction run so high in Louisiana, the first 
thing done would have been for the Legislature to organize- 
second, to dispose of -contests" in the usual way; and then to' 
proceed to canvass the vote for Governor. But instead of this 
two Legislatures were put in operation, one holding with 
Packard, the other with Nichols. It was a quarrel amon^ the 
reputed canvassers of the vote over the question— who of u^'s are 
and who are not canvassers? And there was no tribunal to settle 
the quarrel save the men who were quarreling! The leo-alitv of 
neither Legislature was ever made out in a conclusive manner 
Packard asserted that a majority of those who had been returned 
canvassed the gubernatorial vote and found him elected; but so 
long as a majority of the members about whose elections there 
were no questions had not passed on the elections of his -ma- 
jority," It was not conclusively known that those who composed 
It had been elected. Of course, the other party denied the 
legality of what this - Legislature " did. - Governor" Packard 
and his -Legislature" then called on President Grant to put 
down the other party as disturbers of the peace. Tlie President 
sent m the troops to keep the peace, but refused to touch the- 
governorship. Under date of March 1, 1877, he declared frankly 
m a communication to Packard, -that he did not believe that 
public opinion would longer support the maintenance of the State 
government m Louisiana by the use of the military, and that he 
must concur m the manifest feeling." And so the web became 
more and more entangled. 

But all this time it was as clear as the sun at noon-day that 
the classes -which included the intelligence, the energy, and 
the capital of the community in a preponderating degree'' were 
s out y on the side of Nichols. Finally, it began to be clear 
tliat there were no appreciable elements of power on the side of 
lackard beyond the men who voted for him counted by the 
head. There did not appear to be a man in the State willino- 
either to pull a trigger or pay a dollar in support of the Packard 
cause. It became entirely clear that, if he was to be Governor 
oi Louisiana, he must be put in the office by the National troops 



25 

and kept there by the same means. If President Grant 
shrunk from thrusting a government upon the State in opposi- 
tion to all the higher elements of political power, much more 
had his successor reason to shrink. President Hayes refused 
to undertake the task. This refusal, with the attendant details, 
is his "policy." It is thus summed up by Secretary Sherman 
in his Mansfield speech: 

" The most aiixious consideration was given to this question. Days and weeks 
of anxious deliberation were given to it by the President and his Cabinet. But 
one way seemed open for a peaceful solution, and that was to gather, if possible, 
a single Legislature who could be recognized as the depository of the represen- 
tative will of the people of Louisiana. If this could be done, it had the unques- 
tioned right to decide who had been elected Governor, and all other questions 
would settle themselves. To aid in this object, a Commission of the most emi- 
nent men, high in position from different States, and distinguished foi- judicial 
impartiality, was selected and the result is known to all. They went to Louisi- 
ana, and, with great difficulty, brought together these hostile Legislatures, 
which met, organized, promptly settled the questions in dispute in favor of the 
government of Nichols, and thus ended this most dangerous controversy. No 
other change was made, no otiier act done, except when the solution was almost 
accomplished the few troops who had occupied the State House were withdrawn 
a few squares away to their barracks. Thus, in this peaceful appeal to the 
Legislatm-e of Louisiana, this controversy, which not only endangered the 
peace and safety of this State, but the peace and safety of the whole people of 
the United States, was settled. This is the sum and substance of all that was 
done in the Southern policy, as it is called, of the President." 

And just SO soon as the hundred or two troops went to their 
barracks, the ''Packard Government" fell to the dust never to 
rise again. Few are now so poor as to do it reverence. The 
general acquiescence in its fate, is the best vindication of the 
President's course. 

I need say no more to show that the President's action is the 
plain meaning of the Constitution — the plain duty of a law- 
abiding and patriotic President — and the necessary condition of 
peace and order in the South. It is an accomplished and irre- 
versible fact. Not one of those who oppose it would dare undo 
it if he could. It completes the natural and inevitable revolu- 
tion by which political ascendency in the States lately in rebel- 
lion, has been restored to the white race. It is one of those 
revolutions which do not go backward. 

The President's action has been objected to on several grounds. 
At first the most frequent objections were— " Tilden would have 
done the same thing had he been President," and " Hayes has 
sold out the party." These are not worthy of answer, perhaps 



26 

not of statement. An argument of a liiglier grade is this: 
"Packard and Hayes were the candidates' of the same party in 
Louisiana; Packard received as many votes in the State as Hayes; 
Hayes cannot abandon Packard without discrediting his own 
title." On ethical grounds, this argument is not without force, 
perhaps. But the question is one of law and not of ethics. The 
reply is this: The legal canvassers of the vote in the several 
States returned electoral colleges that, together, gave Mr. Hayes 
a majority of the whole number of electoral votes. The same 
ai'gument that vindicates the right of a State Legislature to 
canvass the vote for Governor, and the right of the Houses 
thereof to pass on the elections, returns, and qualifications of 
their own members, without interference from Washington in 
either case, also vindicates the right of a State Returning Board, 
proceeding according to law, to canvass the electoral vote of the 
State, without interference from the same quarter. It is hard to 
see that State action is final in one case, and not final in the 
other. But when this reasoning was denied, a special Commis- 
sion was created by law to adjudicate all disputed questions; 
which Commission confirmed the action of the State Canvassers, 
on the ground that State action is conclusive. No President has 
been inaugurated under circumstances so impressive. On the 
other hand, no competent tribunal at any time declared Packard 
the Governor of Louisiana. Had he been so declared, the de- 
claration would have been conclusive. When once inaugurated, 
it was the new President's duty to inquire, not ''What is the 
history of my election"? but "What is my constitutional duty"? 
In a government of law the forms of law must be observed, even 
when on a j^riori grounds some other course might seem wiser. 

But it is said, the policy abandons the Negro, sometimes 
called the "Nation's ward," to the hostility of his old master 
and oppressor. To this objection, I reply that, if true, it has 
nothing whatever to do with the question of legality. Also, 
that the Negro had previously been "abandoned" in the 
same way in all tlie other reconstructed States. Still further, 
it was only a question of time; it was bound to come. No 
man in his sober senses can believe that those States could con- 
tinue politically divided on the color line, with the Colored 
race in the ascendency. But I reply indirectly in some remarks 
on Southern society. 



27 

There can be no manner of doubt that, in all tlie Southern 
States since 1865, the Negro's lot has been a hard one. He has 
been the object of general detestation on the part of the 
Southern Whites, and of wide-spread hostility. The story of 
the outrages he has borne has no doubt been colored by inter- 
ested parties for political purposes; but when all allowance has 
been made for exaggeration, the story remains a shameful and 
sickening one. At the same time, there is a point of view from 
which it is somewhat relieved. I shall name three particulars 
that serve to explain it. 

First, the inferior quality of Soutliern civilization. I confine 
myself to one feature. 

One of the best meters of a community's civilization is its 
spirit and habit of law-abidingness. The impulse of the savage 
is to defend his rights and redress his wrongs, with his own right 
hand. It is one of the strongest impulses of his nature. Hence, 
the absence of legal methods, or their violation if present — that 
is, violence — is one of the most plainly marked features of infe- 
rior societies. To teach the savage to check this impulse, to 
intrust his cause to a legal tribunal, and to wait the slow mo- 
tions of lawyers, judges, and juries, with their interminable 
rules and precedents, to put up with what, along with other 
things, drove Hamlet to the verge of suicide, "the law's delay," — 
to teach him all this, is one of the hardest lessons of civilization. 
And yet, it is one of the most important. Again and again he 
refuses to bow to the legal yoke; again and again he throws it off 
when once accepted. The town clerk of Ephesus was enforcing 
this duty on the Ephesians, when he said: "If Demetrius and 
the craftsmen which are with him liave a matter against any 
man, the law is open and there are deputies; let them implead 
one another."* 

There is no society all of whose members have learned this les- 
son; nevertheless, the degree to which it has been learned is a 
good index of a society's culture. 

Tried by this rule, Southern society is rude, far inferior to 
the society of the Northern States and of Western Europe. 
The common practice of carrying pistols and knives on the per- 
son — the frequent occurrence of bloody street-encounters — 

-Acts XIX, 28. 



28 

the survival of that relic of barbarism, the duel— the desperate 
family feuds, rivaling those of the Scotch Highlands genera- 
tions ago— these are sufficient proofs of its rudeness. The 
cause of this state of manners is found in such facts as these: 
insufficient education; a state of intelligence on the average low 
the coarseness of sparse, and especially of backwoods, popula- 
tions; and, above all, slavery. The peculiar institution was a 
fertile breeder of violence. It began in violence and was marked 
by it to the end. In a passage well known in the days when 
slavery was under debate— a passage that explains a thousand 
things in the South to-day— Mr. Jefferson says: 

" The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of 
the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism on the one part, 
and degrading submissions on the other. Our children see this, and learn to im- 
itate it; for man is an imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all educa- 
tion in him. From his cradle to his grave he is learning to do what he sees 
others do. If a parent could find no motive either in his philanthropy or his 
self-love, for restraining the intemperance of passion toward his slave, it should 
always be a suificient one that his child is present. But generally it is not suf- 
ficient. The parent storms, the child looks on, catches the lineament of wrath, 
puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose rein to the 
worst of passions, and thus nursed, exercised, and daily educated in tyranny, 
cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a 
prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circum- 
stances. And with what execration should the statesman be loaded, who, per- 
mitting one half of the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other 
transforms those into despots, and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the 
one part, and the amor patricn of the other."* 

We must not forget that slavery existed in the South two 
hundred and fifty years. 

Second, the South's state of mind at the dose of the war. The 
other day I read this paragraph in the correspondence of a lead- 
ing journal: 

"I doubt if many people at the North have an adequate notion of the in- 
tensity of the emotions with which Southerners look back on the war- and I 
mean tender and not revengeful and malignant emotions. The losses of the 
battle-field were deeply felt at the North-in many households down to the very 
roots of life; but on the whole they fell on a large and prosperous population, 
on a community which, in the very thick of the fray, seemed to be rolling up 
wealth, which revelled as it fought, and came out of the battle triumphant ex 
ultant and powerful. At the South they swept through a scanty population 
with the most searching destructiveness ; and when all was over, they had to be 
wept over in ruined homes, and in the midst of a society which was wrecked 
trom top to bottom, and in which all relations and friends had sunk together to 



*The writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. VIII, p. 403. 



29 

common perdition. There has been no other such cataclysm in history. Great 
States have been conquered before now, but conquest did not mean a sudden 
and desolating social revolution; so that to a Southerner the loss of relatives on 
the battle-field, or in the hospital, is associateil with the loss of everything else. 
A gentleman told me of his going, at the close of the war, into a little church in 
South Carolina on Sunday, and finding it filled with women, who were all in 
black, and who cried during the singing. It reminded one of the scene in the 
cathedral at Leyden, when the people got together to chant a Te Deuin on the 
hearing that the beseiging army was gone ; but the nuisic suddenly dying out, the 
air was filled with the sounds of sobbing. The Leydeners, however, were weak 
and half-starved people, weeping over a great deliverance; these South Caro- 
linians were weeping before endless bereavement and hopeless poverty. I doubt 
much if any community in the modern world was ever so ruthlessly brought 
face to face with what is sternest and hardest in human life ; and those of them 
who have looked at it without fiinching, have something which any of us may 
envy them. "* 

But the South came out of the war with emotions that were 
not tender. 

It has been said a thousand times that the Southerner 
was as much a rebel at the close of the war as when it was in 
progress. In one sense this is true. He had been beaten in 
the argument of battle. He bowed to defeat solely because he 
could not help it, but he hoived. Of course he did not feel like 
embracing those who smote him, or of kissing the rod under 
which he passed. What people, under similar circumstances, ever 
did? Of course his feelings were deep and bitter. What people 
would not have had them? That the intensity of his feelings 
toward the North made reconstruction more difficult, there can 
be no question. But that he has ever meditated a second trial 
of strength with the American Nation, there is no reason to be- 
lieve. Years after the downfall of Napoleon, it was said that 
his old gray coat, hung up on a stick in the harbor of Brest, 
would drive all Europe to arms. It is hardly too much to say 
that, since the war, an old blouse bearing the chevrons of a 
corporal of the United States army, hoisted on a Springfield 
rifle, is enough to keep the peace anywhere between the Potomac 
and the Rio G-rande. 

Third, hostility to Negro rule. Think for a moment of 
the great change in the condition of the Negro. One day he 
was the Southerners chattel; the next, his political master. 
His enthronement in the seats of power Avas the most galling 
symbol of what had happened to the South : the loss of fortune, 

*The Nation,'Sio. 637. 



30 

the loss of political power, the loss of life, and, what is more 
than all the rest, the loss of ''the lost cause." Add to this the 
character of the Negro governments and the insensibility of the 
North, and nothing was wanting to complete the Southerner's 
humiliation. It is easy to say that he deserved it all; but, with- 
out asking wliethcr be did, it may be said that there is not a 
people of spirit on the earth that would meekly submit to such a 
fate. Individuals here and there may be so angelic as to kiss 
the rod that smites them, but societies of men never do. 

Put all that has been said together, and what was more 
natural thau that Southern society the last ten years should have 
been marked by violence and outrage? Military resistance was 
impossible, but the ruder classes could exjDress their feelings and 
their culture in eruptions of barbarism. I do not speak of this 
state of affairs to defend it, but only to explain its causes. 
Politics had much to do with it, but this was only a single cause. 
These excesses are symptoms of a low and rude state of general 
culture. What is more, in so far as they are such symptoms, 
they cannot be cured by physical force. They have their root 
in old thoughts and feelings, in old habits and traditions. 
You can kill a State or an institution with the sword, but 
not a mental habit. You can put an end to violence by military 
force, but you cannot in that way change the mental conditions 
out of which the violence springs. Force may change the ex- 
ternal conditions of mental life, but nothing more. The defects 
of Southern society are below the reach of the bayonet and the 
saber. They must be sloughed, as the snake "sloughs" its skin 
in the Spring-time; grown off, as the stag grows off his horns. 

But the future of the Negro? I cannot doubt that, in the 
long run, it will be better for him that he has lost political 
ascendency in the Southern States. The following from the 
President's late address to the Colored people at Atlanta, is as 
significant as it is true: 

" In his opinion, for no six months since the war had there been so few out- 
rages and invasions of their rights, nor had they been so secure in their rights, 
persons, and homes as in the last six months." 

His position is not an enviable one, nor is it likely soon to be. 
What reason is there to expect it? He is poor and ignorant. 
There is a prejudice against him because he tuas a slave, and a 
stronger prejudice because he is a Negro. De Tocqueville long 



31 

ago pointed out that modern slave-emancipation is mucli more 
diflficult than ancient. These are liis words: 

" The slave, amongst the ancients, belonged to the same race as his master, 
and he was often the superior of the two in education and instruction. Free- 
dom was the only distinction between them; and when freedom was conferred, 
they were easily confounded together. * * * The greatest difficulty of anti- 
quity [in the way of abolition] was that of altering the law; amongst the 
moderns it is that of altering the manners; and, as far as we are concerned, the 
real obstacles began where those of the ancients leave off. This arises from the 
circmnstance that, among the moderns, the abstract and transient fact of 
slavery is fatally united to the permanent and physical fact of color. The tra- 
dition of slavery dishonors the race, and the peculiarity of the case perpetuates 
the tradition of slavery. * * * Thus the Negro transmits the external mark 
of his ignominy to all his descendants. The law may cancel servitude, God 
alone can obliterate its brand. "* 

In a case like this, only time can undo the work of time. 
It were "well if men oftener remembered the sage counsel of 
Bacon: ''It were good, therefore, that men in their innovations 
would follow the example of Time itself, which indeed inno- 
vateth greatly, but quietly, and by degrees scarce to be per- 
ceived."! The war gave the Negro his freedom; the new 
Amendments to the Constitution gave him civil rights and the 
suffrage; and Time must do most of what remains. It must 

"Ring out a slowly-dying cause. 

And ancient forms of party strife; 
Ring in the nobler modes of life. 
With sweeter manners, purer laws." 

But no five millions of people in the United States with free- 
dom, civil rights, and the ballot are likely long to be grievously 
oppressed. . 

The termination of the war left us the difficult task of setting 
up again the State governments that had gone into the Rebel- 
lion, and putting them in proper relations to the Union. Two 
courses were open to us. Either to impose upon the conquered 
people a despotic rule, supported by force of arms; or to enter 
into co-023eration with the intelligence, energy, and political 
experience of the South, to restore and build up society. Per- 
haps we were a little slow in finding the right road. As was 
natural, some mistakes were made. It was our first experience. 
Passion ran high. Both National and anti-National feeling was 

* Democracy in America, Vol. II., pp. 315-217. 
^Essay — Of Innovations. 



LIBRftRY OF CONGRESS 



32 

013 744 505 

strong. The most tremendous of civil insurrections had been 
put down by the most tremendous of efforts. The strong- 
hmged demagogue was abroad in the land; so was the corrup- 
tionist and the fanatic. The Southerner was sulky; the obstruc- 
tionist at the North did his utmost to embarrass the work. But 
we have been finding the right path, and are now wholly in it. 
We have found out that we must consistently follow one theory. 
We cannot to-day treat the Southern States on the republican 
plan, and to-morrow on the imperial plan; that is, we cannot 
treat them one day as sister States in the Republic, and the next 
as jirovinces to be dictated to by force of arms. Violence and 
hot blood are by no means over; but happier days are before us. 
The Southerner's intense feelings are fast being mollified. Every 
day he feels better towards the Nation and the Northern man. 
As he frees himself from the political control of the Negro, he 
treats him with more consideration. Here and there may be a 
madman whb wishes to see the flames of war once more lighted; 
but such is not the wish of the Southern peoj)le. Surely if we 
did our work so poorly before — surely if American human nature 
is so peculiar that we must spend ten thousand millions of 
dollars and take or blast a million lives each generation to main- 
tain our nationality — we might as well give up in despair at 
once. 

It is the common duty of North and South to mind the 
things that make for peace. In common let us thank Grod that 

— " the war drums throb no longer, 

and the battle-flags are f ui'led" ; 

in common let us Avork for 

— " the Parliament of Man, the Federation 
of the world." 



I 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



013 744 505 



Hollinger 

pH8.5 

Mill Run F3'1955 



